traffic incident management: a common operational … 2011-33.pdf · 186.480 2008 2008 england m25...
TRANSCRIPT
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration
Traffic incident management: A common operational picture to support situational awareness of sustainable mobility Research Memorandum 2011-33 John Steenbruggen Peter Nijkamp Jan M. Smits Michel Grothe
TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT: A COMMON OPERATIONAL PICTURE TO SUPPORT SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS OF SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY
John Steenbruggen VU University
Department of Spatial Economics De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam. The Netherlands
Phone: +31 152757301 [email protected]
Peter Nijkamp VU University
Department of Spatial Economics De Boelelaan 1105
1081 HV Amsterdam. The Netherlands Phone: +31 205986090
Jan M. Smits University of Technology Eindhoven
School of Innovation Sciences PoB 513, IPO 2.09
5600 MB Eindhoven +31 (0)40 247 4165
Michel Grothe Geonovum
Barchman Wuytierslaan 10 3818 LH Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Phone: + 31 33 4604106 [email protected]
pn414jsjsmg
Abstract
Successful traffic incident management presupposes a multi-disciplinary approach. To meet
appropriately the safety and mobility needs of all affected parties, traffic incidents call for a
high level of collaboration and coordination of involved agencies. Effective traffic incident
management activities rely in particular on flexible communications and information systems.
Based on experiences from the military domain it is possible to develop strategic concepts
that are related to the improvement of information sharing and collaboration. Such concepts
can also be applied to enhanced traffic incident management information systems. The
present paper aims to offer a review of the state of the art in this field and to illustrate the
empirical usefulness and benefits of traffic incident management.
Keywords: Traffic Incident Management, Common Operational Picture, Shared Situational
Awareness, Context Awareness, Netcentric Enabled Capabilities
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The goal of sustainable mobility is one of the biggest challenges in modern traffic
management. Sustainable mobility refers to the social and ecological objectives of transport,
in particular, the minimization of environmental damage, the maximization of transport
throughflow and the minimization of fatalities in the transport sector. Steadily growing traffic
volumes and traffic intensity since the early seventies have led to enormous congestion and
mobility problems, especially during the rush hours. Irregular situations like traffic incidents,
adverse weather conditions, road works and events increase these mobility problems.
Traffic Incident Management (IM) is “a planned and coordinated process to detect,
respond and remove traffic incidents and restore traffic capacity as safely and quickly as
possible” (US Federal Highway Administration, 2000). The IM concept is also gradually
introduced in the EU. For instance, in the Netherlands, IM is defined as “all measures that are
intended to clear the road for traffic as quickly as possible after an incident has happened, to
ensure safety for emergency services and road users, and control the damage” (Dutch
Ministry of Transportation and Water Management, 1999). Road networks are part of a
country’s transport infrastructure and are therefore subject to general transport policies.
Road traffic injuries in the European Union are a major public health issue, as they are
claiming about 127 thousand lives per year (World Health Organization, 2004). Next to this
intolerably high number of lives lost, about 2.4 million people per year are injured in road
traffic accidents. Over 1.2 million people die each year on the world’s roads, and between 20
and 50 million suffer non-fatal injuries. And most likely, road traffic injuries will rise to
become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030 (World Health Organization, 2009). In terms
of safety, this brings the topic of traffic IM high on the political agenda. The importance of
IM, besides its direct impacts in terms of property damage, injuries and fatalities and road
saftety for the road users, is also very relevant for safe and reliable mobility. In general, traffic
becomes congested when the demand is larger than the supply, i.e. there are more travellers
than the road can cope with. Incidents can quickly lead to congestion and associated travel
delay, wasted fuel, increased pollutant emissions and a higher risk of secondary incidents.
They are an important cause of congestion and the total cost of traffic congestion is high.
The handling of an incident can be described based on the duration of an incident. This
serves to show where problems arise in the clearing of incidents and is useful for determining
what measures are needed for specific situations. The duration is defined as the period of time
2
in which a traffic flow is disrupted due to an incident. The amount of delay and impacts that
result from the incident depends on the duration of the different distinct phases. In the
literature there is no general agreement on the different process phases for IM (Özbay and
Kachroo, 1999; Corbin and Noyes, 2003; US Federal Highway Administration, 2000; Dutch
Ministry of Transportation and Water Management, 2005). In this paper we will use a more
detailed description which in practice covers all the different process phases found in the
literature. The following phases (or time periods) can be identified (based on Zwaneveld et
al., 2000) (see also Figure 1):
Phase 1: detection and verification time (Tl); the time elapsed between the occurrence
detection and verification of the incident;
Phase 2: warning time (T2); the time required to alert all necessary emergency services;
Phase 3: respond, driving, and arrival time (T3); the length of time required by the
emergency service alerted to reach the location of the incident;
Phase 4: operation or action time (T4); the length of time required to move ‘damaged’
vehicles onto the hard shoulder. Lanes are free for normal traffic use;
Phase 5: normalisation time (T5); the time required to take the damaged vehicles from the
hard shoulder to a location out of sight of road users;
Phase 6: flow recovery time (T6); the time elapsed between the moment that the incident
has been fully removed and the disappearance of the tailback.
Figure 1: Different Phases Incident Mangement process (Zwaneveld et al., 2000)
The objective of this paper is to discuss how the innovative concepts of a Common
Operational Picture (COP), shared Situational Awareness (SA) and netcentric working can be
3
applied to traffic Incident Management (IM) to improve the situational interface and the
quality of cooperation between the IM actors. First, we describe the importance of IM and the
mobility consequences in Section 2. Then we analyze the role of information systems to
support IM in Section 3. Netcentric working, originally introduced in the military domain, is a
new way to support daily work processes and the collaboration of chainmembers of IM. This
is decibed in Section 4. The introduction of a netcentric working is strongly related a
Common Operational Picture (COP). This will be discussed in Section 5. The main challenge
is which minimal data set need to be shared and which context variables define an accurate,
operational and understandable picture of reality. This will be analyzed in Section 6. The use
of a COP needs to improve the situational interface of a traffic management central which
leads to better information sharing and decisions which have a positive effect on actions and
IM policy goals. This will be discussed in Section 7. In Section 8 some implementation
options for the introduction of a COP are discussed. Finally, the main problems and issues are
analyzed in Section 9.
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF IM AND MOBILITY CONSEQUENCES
2.1. Providing reliable travel times to road users
Due to the large number of road users on the Dutch network congestion occurs
frequently, particularly at the regular bottlenecks. This leads to congestion and travel time
losses partly because it is difficult for the traveler to estimate how long the journey will take.
Congestion caused by regular bottlenecks travellers can globally indicate how much time
losses due to congestion on most routes. Much more difficult is to estimate the travel time
losses caused by irregular and unexpected situations such traffic incidents, adverse weather
conditions, road works and events. It is, especially for road users, often difficult to predict in
advance when these situations occur and how long the delay will be associated. It is precisely
these characteristics that make irregular situations a large contribution to the unreliability of
travel times. This largely depends on how often irregular situations occur and what is the
impact of the situation (loss of capacity and reliability of travel times).
From 10 per cent in 1995 (McKinsey and Company, 1995) nowadays aproximatetely
12-13 per cent (Knibbe et al. 2004; Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management,
2004; TNO, 2006; KIM, 2010) of all traffic jams on Dutch roads are the result of traffic
incidents. Figure 2 shows the division between regular and irregular congestion for the
situation in the United States. 55 per cent of this congestion is caused by the less predictable
4
irregular situations. There is a big difference between the Netherlands (13 per cent) and for
example the US (25 per cent), Germany (33 per cent) and France (12 per cent) (see ECMT,
2007).
Figure 2: Causes for the existing congestion (US FHWA, 2004)
2.2. Increasing discrepancy between mobility and capacity
The importance of ramping up the application of IM on the road network is shown by
Figure 3. This Figure shows both the trend in mobility in the Netherlands and the growth in
the length of the highways network since 1980. The growing discrepancy between the trend in
mobility and the increase in capacity since 1980 is striking. The increasing weight of traffic
jams (vehicle kilometres per kilometre traffic lane, strain on the highways network) is the
consequence of this. In turn, the increasing imminence of jams means less is required to
trigger a disruption (even small discontinuities can result in a traffic jam). Moreover, the
consequences of a disruption (hours lost by vehicles) become much greater. Through the
application of IM the negative effects of incidents can be reduced considerably (Dutch
Ministry of Transportation and Water Management, 2003).
5
Lane lengthVehicle kilometers Verhicle kilometer / km laneLane lengthVehicle kilometers Verhicle kilometer / km lane Figure. 3: Developments vehicle kilometers and lane length in the Netherlands (index 1995=100), (Dutch
Ministry of Transportation and Water Management, 2003)
From 2000-2008, traffic volumes increased by an average of 2 per cent. In 2009,
traffic volumes fell by 1 per cent. Apparently, then, a small increase in traffic volumes leads
to a large increase in traffic congestion; or, conversely, a relatively small decrease in traffic
volumes consequently lead to a relatively large increase in traffic congestion. In recent years,
this relationship between traffic volumes and traffic congestion has intensified. Presumably,
the reason for this is that the maximum capacity of the main motorway network is reached at
increasingly more places and during an increasingly larger share of the day. The Dutch road
network is very heavily loaded, especially compared to neighboring countries (see Table 1).
The heavy load means that during large parts of the day little spare capacity available.
Consequently, incidents have a big impact.
Table 1: Comparison intensities HWN Netherlands and surrounding countries (Dutch Ministry of
Transportation and Water Management, 2011)
Country Road Day-intensity Year
Belgique R0 Brussel: Woluwe Zuid – Diegem
R1 Antwerpen Borgerhout – Berghem
190.708
186.480
2008
2008
England M25 – Western links from A1(M) to M23
M60 – Manchester West
213.000
186.000
2009
2009
Germany A3 AD Heumar – Nordrhein Westfalen
A100 Dreieck Funkturm – Kurfürstendamm
187.860
191.400
2009
2005
6
Netherlands A1 Muiden – Muiderslot
A4 Kp. Pr. Clausplein – Delft Noord
A4 Hoofddorp – Kp. De Hoek
A10 Kp. Nieuwe Meer – Amstelveen S108
A12 Utrecht – Nieuwegein Noord
A15 Kp Ridderkerk – Hendrik Ido Ambacht
A16 Kralingen – Pr. Alexander
A27 Kp. Rijnsweerd – Kp. Lunetten
Etc.
In total 15 road lanes > 180.000 vtg.
184.964
241.719
208.287
202.591
207.021
239.728
205.098
190.652
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
Congestion occurs when the demand question arises (the number of vehicles per unit
time to pass) is greater than the capacity (number of vehicles per unit time by a road can be
processed). If the network is heavily loaded, more incidents occur (due to limited residual
capacity for long periods of the day) which leads to more congestion and more inreliable
travel times. This is a compelling argument to apply professional IM to the Dutch road
network.
2.3 Costs of traffic jams and delays
Growing from annually 30 million hours lost through traffic congestion in 1990 to
approximately 44 million hours in 2000, nowadays many hours are lost due to congestion in
the Netherlands. For car drivers, between 2000 and 2008 the number of delays caused by
traffic jams and congestion rose by 55 per cent. In 2009, the economic crisis caused that
figure to fall by 10 per cent. Time loss due to traffic jams and congestion increased by 40 per
cent from 2000 to 2009.
Table 2: Time loss due to traffic congestion (KIM, 2010)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Travel time losses (2000 = 44 mln
vehicle lost hours
100 118 110 113 122 131 143 153 155 140
Traffic volume (number of kilomtres 100 102 104 105 108 109 111 114 114 113
Avarage travel time 100 98 99 100 101 103 104 104 102
Unreliable 100 94 94 101 102 105 115 114 104
The total congestion costs on the Dutch main road network for 2009 estimated at 2.4 à
3.2 billion euros. Between 2000 and 2009, these costs with 50 to 60 per cent. It is striking that
in 2009 the first time since 2000 the congestion costs compared to the previous year
decreased. Congestion costs in 2009 were roughly 10 per cent below 2008. This decline is
7
entirely attributable to the decline number of vehicle hours lost. In 2009, the total costs due to
traffic jams on the Dutch main motorway network was estimated at 2.4 to 3.2 billion euros,
which is 10 per cent less than in 2008. Had various measures, including peak-hour and extra
lanes, roadwidening works , traffic information systems and traffic IM, not been undertaken
during this period, travel time loss would have increased by 13 per cent (KIM, 2010).
2.4 Incident numbers and time reduction
On a yearly basis there are about 100.000 incidents (Berenschot 2009), varying from
small accidents to major multi-vehicle incidents causing casualties and vast damages to the
road and its supporting structures. While relatively few incidents involve trucks, these
incidents cause immediate, large-scale traffic jams that catch public attention. All these traffic
jams contribute significantly to the economic damage that The Netherlands suffers each year
from traffic jams. A traffic jam also creates an unsafe traffic situation, while in many cases
collisions occur in the tail of the jam. This entails the risk of further material damage as well
as injury. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to limit as far as possible the length and
duration of such traffic jams.
Figure 4: Increase in avarage IM process handling time in minutes (Dutch Ministry of Transportation and
Water Management, 2011)
Different succesfull applied IM measures have led to a large increasement on the time
duration of incidents. Since the introduction of IM in 1994, the average time of incident-
related IM actions is in 2004 reduced with 25 per cent (Grontmij, 2004). Between 2004 and
2008 the incident duration has been increased with another 10 per cent. The ambition till 2015
8
is to reduce the process time from 2008 with another 25 per cent (Dutch Ministry of
Transportation and Water Management, 2008).
2.5. Incident Management strategies and the importance of speed
In the Netherlands there have been several studies that analyze the effects of incidents
and the relation with IM measures (McKinsey and Company, 1995; Wilmink and Immers,
1996; Schrijver et al., 2006; Kouwenhoven et al., 2006; van Reisen, 2006; Knoop, 2009).
They all conclude that investing in IM measures is very cost-effective. IM measures may have
effects in different phases of the incident handling process. These effects can be regarded as
the objectives of IM measures. IM is one of the most important instruments of traffic
management in the Netherlands against congestion or traffic jams and may seriously reduce
the number of casualties on the roads.
Classical IM strategies are aimed at minimising the negative effects of non-recurrent
congestion that is due to incidents. There is a strong relationship between the duration of an
incident and the respons time required from the traffic management center and the emergency
services. The basic idea is that fast clearance of the incident scene can help to reduce the
incident-related congestion. An early and reliable detection and verification of incidents
together with integrated traffic management strategies are important contributions, which
improve the efficiency of the incident response. There are several studies that analyze the
factors that determine the duration of the incident (Hall, 2002; Lee and Fazio, 2005).
Response time (speed of emergency aid) plays an important role as shown in Figure 5.
The formula shows that the consequences of an incident are proportional to the square of the
accident duration. This quadratic relationship illustrates the importance of IM. The value of
the factor depends on the capacity and the load on the road section. Thus, the number of
vehicle loss hours as the result of an incident depends on the time required to clear the road
for traffic following an accident, the road capacity and the extent to which the road capacity is
filled (Immers, 2007).
9
Figure 5: Relation between incident duration and respons time (Immers, 2007)
An incident means that the available capacity of a road can not be fully used, because
one or more lanes are blocked. This effect is extensively studied. Thus, for a 3-lane road
investigated the residual capacity (the capacity of the road is still available for the movement)
as a function of the number of blocked (not negotiable) lanes. Table 3 shows the remaining
capacity (Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management, 2011)
Table 3: Reduction of capacity (in % of original capacity) of a 3-lane road due to an incident
Number of blocked
lanes
Hard shoulder 1 lane (of 3) blocked 2 lanes (of 3) blocked 0 (traffic jam caused
by viewers)
Reduction capacity 28% 64% 82% 31%
It is striking is that the loss of one or more lanes has a big influence on available
capacity. A vehicle on the hard shoulder already leads to a capacity reduction of 28%
(residual capacity = 72%). If a lane must be closed, the remaining capacity is only 36% (a
reduction in capacity by 64%). An accident leads to the other lane (due to traffic jam caused
by viewers) to a capacity reduction of 31% on the carriage way in the opposite direction. In
the United States will find similar figures based on the results of a study in Washington State
(WSDOT, 2011). The figures indicate that it is very interesting to remove the involved
vehicles as fast as possible form the highway to the hard shoulder or even better to a parking
lane located out of sight of the road users. In the Netherlands there are IM roads (driving time
<15 min.) and IM+ roads (driving time <30 min.). Table 4 shows the level this criteria is
accomplished. There is a slight increase in the services level.
10
Table 4: Services level driving times to incidents (Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water
Management, 2011)
Incident time 2008 2009 2010
Between rush hours 82% 81% 79%
Outside rush hours 93% 93% 91%
However, to apply succesfull IM measures, its relevant how these can improve the
congested network. Hereby its relevant to realize that traffic incidents have not the same
effects at different locations on de highways. There for the highways are categorized in four
new groups (see figure 6). The importance of speed is strongly related to the impact its has on
congestion. Next to that its also relevant if the incident occure during the rush hours (between
06:00 – 10:00 and 15:00 – 19:00).
Figure 6: Netwerk categorization in the Netherlands (Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water
Management, 2011)
3. INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
To carry out the IM process in an effective and efficient way, the need for (spatial)
real-time information and supporting information systems is large. The key obstacle to
effective crisis response is “the communication needed to access relevant data or expertise
and piece together an accurate understandable picture of reality” (Hale, 1997). A well
established communication, information technology and clear organisational responsibilities
among emergency services are the most important issues for IM. In fact, they represent a
prerequisite to effectively apply IM. Technical aspects of IM are considered to impose fewer
11
constraints on IM. The ‘situation’ interface and the ‘control’ interface in a traffic management
centre are the two main domains where information systems plays a crucial role (see Figure
7). The situational interfaces of the traffic management system for monitoring consists of
induction loops, camera’s, and human observers. For the traffic measure support, the road
authorities uses variable message signs, speed limitation signs, ramp metering and peak/plus
lanes and special measures for IM. Peak/plus lanes are additional traffic lanes that can be
opened to traffic if demand requires so. When closed, the lanes are for the exclusive use by
emergency services.
Figure 7: Traffic management building blocks
In current research, there are some general principles that are seen as the basis for
successful emergency response information systems (see Turoff et al., 2000). In the latter
study the authors describe 12 fundamental roles that should be supported by an emergency
management system. As traffic IM can be seen as a special case of emergency response, to a
certain extent these principles can also be applied to design a traffic IM system. These are
clustered in Table 5 based on the situation and control interface.
Although traffic IM is a much more limited domain than general emergency
management, the following design principles will also apply to this domain. First of all, in
order to prevent information overload, relief workers should only receive relevant
information. It is also important to understand what actually happened during the incident and
12
to be able to review this information to improve the incident response. Because of the
dynamic situation of incidents, it is important that the system can be reconfigured, for
example, by changing priorities and filtering options. It should be possible to transfer roles or
tasks to other persons; it should therefore, be possible to check which resources are available.
Since critical decisions require the best possible up-to-date information, providing this
information should be facilitated by an IM information system as much as possible.
Table 5: Fundemental roles for an emergency management system (Turoff et al., 2000)
Situation interface Control interface
Analyze situation
Edit, organize, and summarize information
Report and update situation
Oversight review, consult, advise
Resources
Request resources (people and equipment)
Allocate, delay or deny resources
Maintain resources (logistics)
Acquire more or new resources
Coordinate among different resource areas
Information
Alert all with a need to know
Organization
Assign roles and responsibilities when needed
Priority and strategy setting (e.g., command
and control)
Information technology is essential to improve information sharing and decision
making for emergency responders (Graves, 2004), as it has already drastically reshaped the
way organizations interact with each other (Lee and Whang, 2000). Inter agency exchange of
information is the key to obtain the most rapid, efficient, and appropriate response to highway
incidents from all agencies. More and more, such information must be shared across system,
organizational and jurisdictional boundaries. Public safety agencies and transportation
organizations often have information that is valuable for each other's operations. Example are
(see US NCHRP, 2004):
Better incident detection and notification can engage appropriate public safety resources
sooner, provide more rapid medical care to save lives, minimize injury consequences and
reduce transportation infrastructure disruption;
Better road situation information can speed the delivery of emergency (and support)
resources to the scene;
13
Better incident site status and coordination information can improve the safety of
emergency responders and speed up incident stabilization, investigation, and clearance.
4. NETCENTRIC ENABLED CAPABILITIES FOR IM
Netcentric can be defined as “participating as a part of a continuously evolving,
complex community of people, devices, information and services interconnected by a
communications network to achieve optimal benefit of resources and better synchronization
of events and their consequences” (see Wikipedia). The concept of ‘Network Centric
Warfare’ (NCW) has proved to be very useful in the development of new capabilities for
military operations, disaster management, homeland security and emergency management.
Network centric warfare can trace its immediate origins to 1996 when Admiral William
Owens introduced the concept of a 'System of Systems‘ (Owens, 1996). Owens described the
evolution of a system of intelligence sensors, command and control systems, and precision
weapons that enabled enhanced situational awareness.
As a distinct concept however, ‘network-centric warfare’ first appeared publicly by the
US Naval Institute (Cebrowski and Gartska, 1998). It is a new military doctrine or theory of
war now commonly called ‘network-centric operations’. It seeks to translate an information
advantage, enabled in part by information technology, into a competitive advantage through
the robust networking of well informed geographically dispersed forces. This concept was
introduced in the USA in the mid-1990s, together with the concept of ‘Information Age
Warfare’. (see Alberts et al., 2000, 2001; Alberts, 2002). The concept of Information Age
Warfare is based on the emergence of information technologies and the role it can play in
modern warfare. Information plays an important role in military operations and technological
advantages make it possible to provide more complete, more accurate and timelier
information to decision makers. Many experts believe the terms ‘information-centric’ or
‘knowledge-centric’ would capture the concepts more aptly because the objective is to find
and exploit information. The network itself is only one of several enabling factors. This
networking, combined with changes in technology, organization, processes, and people may
allow new forms of organizational behaviour. Traditionally, military organizations provided
information to forces in three ways (Alberts, 2002):
commands (directives and guidance);
intelligence (information about the adversary and the environment), and
14
doctrine (how are you going to do it).
At the beginning of the 21st Century, several other countries began to develop their
own view on NCW. In the literature different examples of definitions and concepts of
Netcentric Operations can be found: Network Enabled Capabilities - NEC (UK); Ubiquitous
Command and Control - UC2 (AUS)., Network Based Defence - NBD (Sweden) and Net-
Centric Operations - NCO (US and NATO).
A few years later the term NEC has been also used by other government agencies in
papers on disaster management and homeland security (Boyd et al., 2005). For example in the
Netherlands there is an initiative between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the
Interior, named Netcentric Experimentation, where the NEC/NCW concepts are used for
disaster management and homeland security (Brooijmans et al., 2008).
NEC offers decisive advantages through the timely provision and exploitation of
information and intelligence to enable effective decision making and actions. NEC has three
overlapping and dependant dimensions: networks, information and people. All three
dimensions need continuous development to reach the full potential of NEC. At the heart of
NEC is the network of networks to distribute information. The networked information
environment provides the capability to acquire, generate, distribute, manipulate and utilize
information. Information is essential for decision making. Decision makers at all levels will
need to identify what information is required and how to obtain it (UK Ministry of Defence,
2005). The real value is reflected in the NEC value chain (see Figure 8).
Figure 8: NEC value chain (UK Ministry of Defence, 2005)
As traffic IM can be seen as a special case of disaster management and homeland
security, the NEC concept and the value chain can also be applied to design a traffic IM
system.
15
5. COMMON OPERATIONAL PICTURE
A Common Operational Picture (COP) is a term widely used within the military
domain to support situational awareness for command and control in netcentric operations
(Wark et al., 2009). It has been defined in many ways. Some definitions address the joint,
multi-service and interoperabiliy aspects of the COP. The US Department of Defense (2005)
for example, defines a COP as “a single identical display of relevant information shared by
more than one command. A COP facilitates collaborative planning and assists all echelons to
achieve situational awareness” (FM 3-0)1. In Wikipedia2, a COP is defined as: “Military
commanders need to know where all their own troops are, where their enemies are, and
various other information about the battlefield (or battlespace)”. This knowledge is described
in terms of situation awareness. The concepts of (shared) situational awareness and a COP
have been adopted by the military as a guiding principle for combat operations (Pentagon,
2006). Other definitions address the way in which the information can be contained in a
COP. A military view on this definition of a COP3 is “a distributed data processing and
exchange environment for developing a dynamic database of objects, allowing each user to
filter and contribute to this database, according to the user’s area of responsibility and
command role”. The COP provides the integrated capability to receive, correlate, and display
a common tactical picture. The concept of a COP has after also been adopted as a goal for law
enforcement, emergency management, firefighters and other first responders (Harrald and
Jefferson, 2007). During the last few years, there has been a significant interest from various
actors in designing information systems for the use of a COP for crisis response4. It is widely
used to support situational awareness for command and control in netcentric operations (Wark
et al., 2009). In line with different military views also for emergency services, there are
several approaches, for example in Homeland (2008), which focus on information: “a COP is
established and maintained by gathering, collating, synthesizing, and disseminating incident
information to all appropriate parties”. Focussing on collaboration and multi services:
“Achieving a COP allows on-scene and off-scene personnel to have the same information
about the incident, including the availability and location of resources and the status of
assistance requests”. Additionally, a COP offers an incident overview that enables to make
1 http://www.huntinginfo.net/infantryglossary/C.htm 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Operational_Picture 3 www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives/cdata/unlimit/3151_01.pdf 4 http://jonaslandgren.blogspot.com/2007/03/common-operating-picture.html
16
effective, consistent, and timely decisions. In order to maintain situational awareness,
communications and incident information must be updated continually. Having a COP during
an incident helps to ensure consistency for all emergency management/response personnel
engaged in the incident.
FEMA (2009), for example, applies the definition of a COP in reference to a single
disaster or incident which is representative of many others: “A COP offers a standard
overview of an incident, thereby providing incident information that enables the Incident
Commander/Unified Command and any supporting agencies and organizations to make
effective, consistent, and timely decisions. Compiling data from multiple sources and
disseminating the collaborative information COP ensures that all responding entities have the
same understanding and awareness of incident status and information when conducting
operations”. This definition supports that a COP is a product of a successful
situational awareness environment. If SA is the culmination of comprehensive information
sharing for the operating environment, then a COP is a compilation of that body of
knowledge, captured and distributed.
As traffic IM can be seen as a special case of emergency response, a COP can also be
applied to design a traffic IM system. IM involves the coordinated interactions of multiple
public agencies and private-sector partners. In the literature, some reports analyze information
sharing between different IM organisations. Different methods have been described on how
organisations share information (US NCHRP, 2004). However, they are still far from sharing
detailed and situational information and do not use a COP or netcentric operations. They
mainly focus on interoperability issues. In a more recent report (US Department of
Transportation, 2009) which focuses also on information needs, issues and barriers for
information sharing between public and private IM organisations, they also do not use the
concepts of a COP, shared SA or netcentric operations.
6. CONTEXT IN A COMMON OPERATIONAL PICTURE
The main objective of context-aware computing is to make interaction with computers
easier and more supportive for human activity. This can be done in several ways, one of the
most important being the filtering of the information flow from application to user to prevent
the problem of information overload (Schmidt et al., 1999). In other words, getting the right
information / services at the right moment in the right context. The other way around the flow
of information from user to application can automatically be enriched with relevant context
17
information, of which time location and identity are usually the most important context
elements. The impact that the different context variables have on information systems largely
depends on de specific characteristics of the process and information needs which they
support.
The context is defined by van Eijk et al. (2004) (see also Dey, 2001) as “any
information that can be used to characterize the environment of a person that is considered
relevant to the user, the device or the service”. From a computer point of view, context is
defined more concisely by Moran and Dourish (2001) who define context as being “the
physical and social situation in which computational devices are embedded”. Dey and Abowd
(1999, 2000) distinguish between primary and secondary context types. Primary context types
describe the situation of an entity and are used as indices for retrieving second level types of
contextual information. Küpper (2005) termed the context ‘data’ as primary context (main
categories: Time, Location, Identity and Activity) and the context ‘information’ as secondary
context, categorized into personal, technical, spatial, social and physical contexts. Both
Pascoe (1998) and Schilit et al. (1994) have attempted to categorize the features of context-
aware services using two orthogonal dimensions that on one axis describe whether a task is to
get information or to execute a command and on the other axis, whether the task is executed
manually or automatically. Dey and Abowd (2000) discuss these taxonomies in detail and
finally come up with a general list of three context-aware features that context-aware services
may support:
presentation of information and services to a user (getting information);
automatic execution of a service (execute command);
tagging of context (by the user) to information for later retrieval (storing information).
Cassen and Kofod-Petersen (2006) suggest a context model based on activity theory.
This context taxonomy incorporates the tradition in context-aware systems, and the general
concepts found in activity theory. Other definitions have simply provided synonyms for
context; for example, referring to context as the environment or situation. Some consider
context to be the user’s environment, while others consider it to be the application’s
environment. Brown (1996) defined context to be “the elements of the user’s environment that
the user’s computer knows about”. Franklin and Flaschbart (1998) see it as the situation of the
user. Ward et al. (1997) view context as the state of the application’s surroundings, while
Rodden et al. (1998) define it to be the application’s setting. Hull et al. (1997) included even
the entire environment by defining context to be aspects of the current situation.
18
Table 6: Types of context information to improve a Situational interface (COP)
IM Phase
Context
information
Phase 1 and 2
Detection, Warning
(notification) and
Verification
Phase 3
Respond, Driving and
Arrival
Phase 4
Site Management
Operation (action)
Phase 5 and 6
Normalization, Flow
Recovery
Location - incident location
- location emergency
vehicles
- location emergency
services
- safety zone incident
location
- location traffic jam
information caused by
incident
Time
- date and time incident
- warning time emergency
services
- prognosis driving time
vehicles
- prognosis total incident
time
- departing time to incident
- arrival time by incident
- realisation save incident
location
- waiting time towing
service
- clearence time towing
service
- normalization time
- flow recovery time
Activity
- detection incident by road
users (drivers), camera’s,
police, road inspector,
towing services and e-call
- warning other emergency
services
- verification information
- allocate resources
- incident registration
- availability and capacity
emergency services
(resources)
- inform emergency
services
- driving to incident
location
- Incident registration
- safety on location
establised
- stabilization rescue
operation
- cleaning or recovering
and clearence road
- coordination between
emergency services
- incident registration
- stable incident situation
- clearance time peak lanes
Identity
- Incident number, type and
magnitude (number
involved vehicles and
injuiries).
- identity emergency
material (vehicles)
- indentity emergency
workers
- aid question for traffic
management measures,
injured, fire, towing
vehicles, road reparation
- coordination emergency
- police investigation
(question of guilt)
Environmental
context
- sensors which provide a
direct (near) realtime
status of the incident
location and the
surrounding environment
in terms of saftey and
mobility consequences
(video, camera,
temperature sensors,
photodiodes, omni-
directional microphones,
telecom data, RF beacons,
fire detection, airpolution
detectors etc.
- location critical
infrastructure
- information about events
- weather conditions
- historical information
- information of other
incidents in surrounding
area
- information about
damaged infrastructure
- road conditions in
surrounding area (blocked
roads, traffic jams)
19
The variety of attempts to define a context signal the difficulty to define context in a
general yet useful way to create an intelligent COP. In spite of the lack of a consistent, unified
and operationally useful definition of context, there are certain types of information
dimensions that systematically appear in the literature and applications on context-aware
computing. In practice, it is not essential to achieve a comprehensive and universal
classification of context variables. The relevance of some variables, or groupings, changes
with the uses of the services that rely on context information. What is essential is that any
context-aware service within a COP provides a clear definition of the context variables that
influence the service itself. This is important to justify the use of these variables in terms of
added value or usefulness to the service, but also to identify the technical features of the
service that rely on context information. In Table 3 we give some examples which context
variables are contained in a COP and need to be shared between different IM chain members.
We combine these with the different IM process phases as defined in Zwanenveld et al.
(2000).
Feng et al. (2009) claimed to be the first one who incorporated the notion of context
awareness for providing customized situation awareness. They stated that “Whereas Context
awareness is about exploiting the context of a user and helping the user to have a more
effective interaction with the system by actively changing the system’s behavior according to
the user’s current context or situation, Situation awareness focuses more on the modelling of
a user’s environment to help the user to be “aware of his current situation”. As far as we
know, in literature there is not yet a clear understanding which context variables should
support Situational Awareness for traffic IM.
7. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
Most simply Situational Awareness (SA) has been general defined as “knowing what
is going on around you” (Adam, 1993; Adams et al., 1995; Endsley and Garland, 2000).
Although the term Situational Awareness (SA) itself is fairly recent, the evolution and
adoption of the concept has a long history (Harrald and Jefferson, 2007). The concept finds its
roots in the history of military theory5 in combination with NCW (Alberts et al., 2000; Alberts
et al., 2001; Alberts, 2002). Most of the related research has originally been conducted in
military aviation safety in the mid 1980’s to design computer interfaces for human operators.
5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War
20
(Endsley 1988, Dominques, 1994; Endsley, 1995, Naval Aviation Schools, 2006; NASA,
2006). The concepts of SA and COP have been adopted by the military as a whole as a
guiding principle to define and/or oversee combat operations.
SA has been identified as one of the primary factors in accidents attributed to human
error (see Hartel et al., 1991; Redding, 1992; Merket et al., 1997; Nullmeyer et al., 2005). The
SA literature gives many examples of incidents and accidents, which could have been avoided
if operators had recognized the situation in time. SA is especially important in work domains
where the information flow can be quite high and poor decisions may have serious
consequences. It is also a field of study concerned with perception of the environment critical
to decision makers in complex, dynamic areas such as aviation, air traffic control, power plant
operations, military command and control, and emergency services. Klein (2000) present four
reasons why SA is important: 1) SA appears to be linked to performance; 2) Limitations in
SA may results in errors; 3) SA may be related to expertise; and 4) SA is the basis for
decision making. A distinction can be made between individual and shared or team SA which
will be explained in the next sections.
7.1. Definitions and models for individual Situational Awareness
Models that currently dominate the literature focus on the SA of individual operators
(see Stanton et al., 2001). These are individually oriented theories, including Endsley’s three-
level model (Endsley, 1995), Smith and Hancock’s perceptual cycle model (Smith and
Hancock, 1995) and Bedny and Meister’s activity theory model (Bedny and Meister, 1999).
These models differ in process versus product and in terms of the psychological approach. For
example, Endley’s three level model takes an information processing approach and is purely
cognitive and does not include technological aspects, Smith and Hancock use a perceptual
cycle model approach, and Bedny and Meister use an activity theory model to describe SA.
Of the individual oriented SA theories, Endsley’s information processing based on a
three-level model is the most popular (see Salmon et al., 2007). Endsley (1988) defines SA as
a product comprising “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of
time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the
near future”. Wickens (2008) gives an extensive review of Endsley’s articles on SA theory
and measurement. Endsley (2000) argues that achieving (human) SA involves combining,
interpreting, storing, and retaining information. Endsley’s SA model is the result of
processing at three distinct levels (Endsley, 1995):
perception: attributes and dynamics of the elements in the environment are perceived;
21
comprehension: multiple pieces of information are integrated and their relevance to the
decision maker’s goals is determined;
projection: future events are predicted.
Several definitions of SA have been suggested, but these generally restate the same
themes (e.a. Sarter and Woods, 1991; Fracker, 1991; Dominguez et al., 1994; Smith and
Hancock, 1995; Adam, 1993; Jeannot et al., 2003). Endley’s theories of individual SA do not
use the concepts of a ‘COP’ and ‘network-centric operations’, but are more defined as a set of
goals and decision taks for a certain job or activity of individuals within an organization. So
its context depends on what is the right information to support a SA environment. However
there is a strong relation between the quality of shared SA in terms of interaction, when the
individual also works within a team to perform the required task in network-centric operations
based on individual SA. Next to the different levels of SA of the environment, it is also
relevant what is the SA of the own organisation. This is also called organisation awareness
(see Oomes, 2004).
7.2. Definitions and models for shared Situational Awareness
A general accepted definition of shared SA is lacking. Endsley (1995), for example,
defines team SA as “the degree to which all of the team members develop sufficient individual
SA to perform their required tasks”. However, this does not necessarily imply a sharing of SA
(Salas et al., 1995). According to Klein (2000) shared Situation Awareness refers to “the
degree to which the team members have the same interpretation of ongoing events”. Nofi
(2000) examines the definitions of ‘common operating picture’ and ‘situational awareness’
and finds through his extensive literature review that considerable ambiguity exists. SA is
defined as: “The result of a dynamic process of perceiving and comprehending events in one’s
environment, leading to reasonable projections as to possible ways that environment may
change, and permitting predictions as to what the outcomes will be in terms of performing
one’s mission. In effect, it is the development of a dynamic mental model of one’s
environment”.
Nofi (2000) defines the difference between Situational Awareness and shared
Situational Awareness: “Shared SA implies that we all understand a given situation in the
same way”. In the multi-jurisdictional or multi-agency environment, the “we” in his definition
is the group of agencies and leaders having a vested interest in understanding their shared
operating environment in the same manner. From this we can conclude that SA is maintained
22
by the organization and shared situational awareness is sought between organizations and
others.
Awareness information environments help to support the coordination of working
groups. Typically, they provide application-independent information to geographically
dispersed members of a working group about the members at the other sites such as their
presence, availability, past and present activities. Often they consist of sensors capturing
information, a server that processes the information, and indicators to present the information
to the users (Gross and Specht, 2001). Awareness information environments capture various
types of information and events from the physical world and from the electronic world and
present the information to the members of workgroups. As these environments can potentially
have a big number of sensors that constantly capture a vast amount of information, some
structuring of the information is required. Furthermore, the members of the working group
need a common reference on the shared world as a basis for communication and cooperation.
Context information can be used to structure awareness information and to provide users with
this common reference (Clark and Brennan, 1991). The SA of the team as a whole is
dependent upon both (1) a high level of SA among individual team members for the aspects
of the situation necessary for their job; and (2) a high level of shared SA between team
members, providing an accurate common operating picture of those aspects of the situation
common to the needs of each member (Endsley and Jones, 2001).
8. A COMMON OPERATIONAL PICTURE FOR IM
8.1. Introduction within traffic IM
In Harrald and Jefferson (2007), is stated that “the transfer of these concepts from its
safety and combat origins to the complex, heterogeneous emergency management structure
will be exceedingly difficult, and that short term strategies based on the assumption that
shared situational awareness will be easily achieved are doomed to failure”. The
collaboration between the different IM actors takes place at 3 different levels: (1) policy; (2)
management; and (3) operations.
The collaboration is formalized by policy rules and contracts between the different
road authorities, towing services and insurance organisations. On an operational level, a COP
can support the daily activities in terms of information sharing between the IM field workers
(e.g. road inspectors, fire brigade, medical ambulance services and police). This means that a
COP provid a SA for each field worker based on their specific tasks to support IM. In Harrald
23
and Jefferson (2007) is stated that “those controlling and coordinating the response and
recovery will attain and maintain an accurate, shared COP and SA”. This means that for IM
this task will be done by the traffic management centres and the dispatch centres of the other
emergency services (e.g. police, firebrigade, medical services and towing services).
In the literature it is generally accepted that decision making in a Command and
Control environment is composed of a number of dynamic and cyclic perceptual, procedural
and cognitive activities, achieved either by humans, computer systems or both (Roy, 2007).
The support of a COP for Command and Control reflects to the process that delivers strategic
and operational intelligence products which is generally depicted in cyclic form. Intelligence
refers to a special kind of knowledge necessary to accomplish succesfully a mission (Waltz,
2003). In a military organization Command and control can be defined as ‘the exercise of
authority and direction by a properly designated commanding officer over assigned and
attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission’. Command and control functions are
performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and
procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling
forces and operations in the accomplishment of the mission. However, colloboration and
information sharing in the domain of traffic IM involves different public organizations with
their own specific responsibilities. Command and control plays here a different role and the
introduction of the militairy concepts needs to be carefully managed and applied to these
specific situation.
Incident data need automatically to be logged by the field workers and the traffic
management centrales to obtain real-time SA on a operational level. This provides a
monitoring instrument at management level. Thus, a COP also serves the management need to
measure the overal IM performance in terms of response time, clearence time, the impact on
traffic jams and vehicle lost hours. This can also provide relevant information for policy
makers. This provides a basis for monitoring IM policy goals, gives a instrument to justify
investments in IM measures and gives a tool for comparing different traffic management
investments in general. Finally, the introduction of a COP can also provide relevant
information for road users in terms of road traffic conditions, expected traffel times and inside
what the impact is of an incident on the entire network.
As stated above, to introduce the concept of a COP is extremely difficult and short
term strategies are doomed to fail (Harrald and Jefferson, 2007). This means that for a
succesful adoption these concepts need to be carefully introduced. A logical step is to
introduce a COP in different stages. The first choice is the user perspective. It make sense to
24
start with those who are controlling and coordinating the response and recovery processes. It
is them who will attain and maintain an accurate, shared COP and SA as stated by Harrald
and Jefferson (2007). The second choice is which IM actors will be involved. It makes sense
that those who are the most involved in the IM process in terms of responsibility and involved
incident numbers will take the lead. For IM, these are the road authorities, the police and the
towing services. In next stages other IM actors can be involved. The third choice is the data
which contains a COP. Table 2 defines which data are relevant in the different IM proces
phases as argued before. One of the main problems is information overload (Endsley and
Kiris, 1995). Thus it make sense to not integrate all information as mentioned in Table 2 for a
first introduction of a COP. The information to support IM can be clustered in different
groups: (1) incident text message; (2) geo-information; and (3) sensor information (e.g.
camera, detection loop, telecom data). Next to that information need to be filtered and
personalized for end users.
The fourth choice is the ambition level for achieving shared SA using a COP. To build
up shared awareness all teams need to share information and share understanding of the
situation (Albert et al., 2002). Alberts suggest a maturity model to go from the traditional
command and control process to self synchronization (see Figure 9):
Level 0: baseline, traditional command and control;
Level 1: significant amount of information sharing;
Level 2: collaboration across location, function and organization among participants;
Level 3: Improved level 2, by not focusing on sharing information but on what it means;
Level 4: permits self-synchronization
.
Figure 9: Network-Centric Maturity Model (based on Alberts et al., 2002)
25
The current IM work processes in the Netherlands could be characterized somewhere
between level 1 and 2. However, even on level 1, there are still many problems identified in
the daily operations on information sharing and communication.
8.1. Measuring value added service
Netcentric working is a basic constraint to achieve shared SA based on a COP between
the different IM organizations. In Table 7 the components of the NEC value chain are
combined with the different IM process phases as defined by Zwaneveld et al. (2000). The
logic behind this table is the following. Improved situational interface is created by detection,
warning and verification based on better information. Better information leads to better
responding of the emergency services. By better responding, resources are used more
effectively so that better action can take place. This leads to a better outcome, faster clearence
of an incident site and therefore to a reduction of traffic jams and vehicle lost hours.
Table 7: Relation between NEC value chain and the IM process phases
NEC Value chain Incident Management phase Benefitts
Better networks Technical infrastructure field workers and traffic management central
Better information sharing Detection, warning Improved Situation interface
Better understanding Verification based on improved Situation interface
Better decisions Respond, driving and arrival better use of resources
Better actions Site management, operation, action more effective field operations
Better effects Normalization, flow recovery reduction on traffic jams and vehicle lost hours
The term “picture” in a COP refers not so much to a graphical representation, but
rather to the data used to define the operational situation. As such, “the creation and
dissemination of the COP is as much an information management challenge as it is a
visualization challenge“ (Mulgund and Landsman, 2007). To measure the value added
services of SA for IM we introduce a 3D model (see Figure 10). This is based on:
Level of SA, Reformulation of Endsley’s definition on SA (see Hone, 2006);
SA components of IM (incident, environment and organizations);
IM Process phases (see Zwaneveld et al., 2000).
26
Figure 10: 3D model of measuring SA for traffic IM
This 3D model will be used to measure the qualitative and quantitative value added
services in daily traffic IM workprocces between involved organizations. Qualitative aspects
will focus on economics effects (Koster and Rietveld, 2011) in terms of reduction of speed
and vehicles lost hours. Quantitative aspects will focus more on the quality of collaboration
and system- and information quality (Strong et al. 1997; Perry et al. 2004; Singh et al., 2007;
Bharosa et al., 2009) . Here for we will use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which
is extensively described in literature (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Wixom and Todd,
2005). This will be future work and not further described in this paper.
9. PROBLEMS ACHIEVING A COMMON OPERATIONAL PICTURE
There are several private and public actors involved with different responsibilities and
tasks to support the IM process which use their own information systems. (Hale, 1997)
mentioned that “The key obstacle to effective crisis response is the communication needed to
access relevant data or expertise and piece together an accurate understandable picture of
reality”. The problem with today’s information systems is not the lack of having information,
but to find or display the right information when it is needed. (Endsley and Kiris, 1995)
defined this as the ‘information gap’. Furthermore, a distinction can be made between have
and share information for an effective colloboration between the different chain members. It
What will they do?
Level 3
projection of their near future
•What are they doing?
Level 2
the comprehension oftheir meaning’
•who is where?Level 1
perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space
Organization(Emergency
services)
Environment(Surrounding
incident)
IncidentSA components
What will they do?
Level 3
projection of their near future
•What are they doing?
Level 2
the comprehension oftheir meaning’
•who is where?Level 1
perception of elements in the environment within a volume of time and space
Organization(Emergency
services)
Environment(Surrounding
incident)
IncidentSA components
Detection, Warningand Verification
Respond, drivingand arrival
Site managementoperations
Normalization andflow recovery
Process phases
SA
Le
vel
SA components
27
is widely agreed that more data does not mean better information in terms of information
overload.
The terms “common operating picture” and “shared situational awareness” imply that
(1) technology can provide adequate information to enable decision makers in a
geographically distributed environment to act as though they were receiving and perceiving
the same information; (2) common methods are available to integrate, structure, and
understand the information; and (3) critical decision nodes share institutional, cultural, and
experiential bases for imputing meaning to this knowledge. The first two steps are necessary
for the common operating picture, all three are required for a shared situational awareness
(Harrald and Jefferson, 2007).
In the literature, many problems are identified to introduce these concepts. Lambert
(2001, 2003) and Lambert and Scholz (2005) discuss problems with the different meanings of
‘Common’ in a COP and the nature of information and its presentation. Mulgund and
Landsman (2007) describe the different meanings of ‘picture’ in a COP. Problems with
individual Situational Awareness can be found in Endsley et al. (2003).
One tenet of the NCW is that information sharing and collaboration enhance the
quality of information and shared SA (Alberts, 2002). The value of communication networks
depends upon how they are used. Shared SA will result by using the communication networks
to disseminate a COP. However, as we move from an individual or narrowly focused
operating picture to that of a common operating picture with shared situational awareness the
problems increase (Harrald and Jefferson, 2007; Lambert and Scholz, 2005). Primary goal is
that effective decisions and actions are related to the right context. Obstacles in sharing and
coordinating information are discussed by Bharosa et al. (2010). In an information-rich
environment users can be easily overloaded (Endsley and Kiris, 1995). To achieve a ‘shared’
SA for users in diverse roles and operating domains (i.e. contexts). the interpretation of a
common ‘picture’ will also be influenced by their individual circumstances (Endsley, 1995).
10. RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT
IM involves the coordinated interactions of multiple public agencies and private-sector
partners. Transportation operations and public safety operations are intertwined in many
respects. Public safety providers (law enforcement), fire and rescue, and emergency medical
services ensure safe and reliable transportation operations by helping to prevent crashes and
rescueing accident victims. Conversely, the transportation network enables access to
28
emergency incidents and, increasingly, provides real-time information about roadway and
traffic conditions.
Information systems become increasingly important to help daily activities for
supporting IM. However, information sharing between different IM organization is still in his
early stages of development. Various papers have concluded that information quality and
system quality are still major hurdles for efficient and effective multiagency emergency
services and are crucial for information systems success (Lee et al., 2011). A COP to create
situational awareness becomes more and more accepted as an instrument to add value to share
information in an effective way. The introduction of these concepts is extremely difficult and
short-term strategies are doomed to fail. In the literature, these concepts are mainly discussed
for large-scale disasters and emergency services. Traffic incidents happen on a daily basis and
are carried out by trained and experienced emergency services. This should make it relatively
easy to adopt and apply these concepts to IM. This paper has demonstrated – through a broad
literature overview from different domains – that the use of a COP holds a promise for
applying smart IM. Clearly, more work needs to be done to explain the benefits of such
systems and to overcome the many problems as identified in the literature.
The following general conclusions can be drawn:
IM is very relevant for mobility issues and its direct impacts in terms of property damage,
injuries and fatalities and road saftety for the road users;
Road traffic deaths and injuries in the EU are a major public health issue;
Effective IM activities rely on flexible communications and information systems
The concepts of COP, situational awareness, and netcentric working have their roots in
the military domain and are slowly adopted in emergency and disaster management
environments;
In the literature, there is not yet an accepted model which defines the context variables
used in a COP to provide Situational Awareness for IM;
There are still many unresolved problems identified which are mainly related to the
cognitive domain;
Succesful adoption of these concepts need to be carefully introduced in different stages.
29
REFERENCES
Adam, E.C. (1993). Fighter cockpits of the future. Proceedings of 12th IEEE/AIAA Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp. 318–323.
Adams, M., Tenney, Y., and Pew, R. (1995). Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Human Factors 37(1), pp. 85–104.
Alberts, D.S., Garstka, J.J.and Stein, F.P. (2000). Network Centric Warfare. Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority. CCRP Publication Services, Washington, pp 287.
Alberts, D.S., Garstka, J.J., Hayes, R.E. and Signori, D.A. (2001). Understanding Information Age Warfare. CCRP Publication Services, Washington, pp. 319.
Alberts, D.S. (2002). Information Age Transformation. Getting to a 21st Century military. CCRP Publication Services, Washington, pp. 155, First published 1996.
Alberts, D.S., Garstka, J.J.and Stein, F.P. (2002). Network-Centric Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority (2nd ed. Vol. 2): CCRP Publication series.
Bedny, G. and Meister, D. (1999). Theory of activity and situation awareness, International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics 3, pp. 63-72.
Berenschot, (2009), Eindrapport Kwalitatieve jaarmeting IM 2008, Leopold, J-H and Doornbos, H.
Bharosa, N., Van Zanten, B., Zuurmond, A. & Appelman, J. (2009). Identifying and confirming information and system quality requirements for multi-agency disaster management. InProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM) (Landgren, J. and Nulden, U. and Van De Walle, B., Eds).
Bharosa N., Lee, J. and Janssen, M. (2010). Challenges and obstacles in sharing and coordinating information during multi-agency disaster response: Propositions from field exercises, Inf Syst Front (2010) 12 pp. 49–65.
Boyd, C., Williams, W., Skinner, D. and Wilson, S. (2005). A comparison of approaches to assessing Network-Centric Warfare (NCW) concept implementation, Systems Engineering / Test & Evaluation (SETE 2005) conference, http://www.concepts.aero/documents/SETE-2005-NPI.pdf (last accessed 12-01-2011).
Brown, M. (1996). Supporting User Mobility. International Federation for Information Processing. Graphics, Visualization and Usability Center and College of Computing,Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 30332-0280
Brooijmans, P., Riedijk, A., Jacobs, C., Lassche, R. and Scholten, H.J. (2008). Measurement of the added value of geographic information in disaster management, VU University Amsterdam, Spatial Information Laboratory, The Netherlands, Proceedings of the 11th GDSI conference, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 2009.
Cassens, J., and Kofod-Petersen, A. (2006). Using Activity Theory to Model Context Awareness: A Qualitative Case Study. FLAIRS Conference, Melbourne Beach, Florida, USA 2006 pp. 619-624.
Cebrowski, A. K. and Garstka, J. (1998). Network Centric Warfare: Its Origins and Future, Proceedings of the US Naval Institute 124(1) (January, 1998), pp. 28–35
Clark, H.H. and Brennan, S.E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M. and Teasley, S.D., eds. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1991. pp. 127-149.
30
Corbin, J. and Noyes, P.B. (2003). Traffic Incident Management Planning: The Case for Mainstreaming. ITE Journal, February 2003. Available online: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3734/is_200302/ai_n9211940
Davis, F. D. (1989), "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology", MIS Quarterly 13(3): 319–34
Dey, A.K. and Abowd, G.D. (1999). Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness. GITGVU-99-22, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, ftp://ftp.cc.gatech.edu/pub/gvu/tr/1999/99-22.pdf, 1999. (Accessed 12/01/2011).
Dey, A.K. and Abowd, G.D. (2000). Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context Awareness. Conference paper presented at the CHI 2000 Workshop on the What, Who, Where, When, Why and How of Context-Awareness, April 1-6, 2000.
Dey, A.K. (2001) Understanding and Using Context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Journal 5(1), 2001, pp. 4-7.
Dominguez, C., Vidulich, M., Vogel, E. & McMillan, G. (1994). Situation awareness: Papers and annotated bibliography. Armstrong Laboratory, Human System Center, ref. AL/CF-TR-1994-0085
Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management in the Netherlands (1999). Policy rules Incident Management Rijkswaterstaat, 1999.
Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management (2003) ‘Prestaties Nederlands Wegennet: De ontwikkeling van het wegverkeer, de wegcapaciteit en congestie in verleden en toekomst.’ RWS AVV, Rotterdam, mei 2003
Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management (2004), Memorandum on Mobility - Towards a reliable and predictable access, Ministry of Transport, Public works and Water Management, 30 September 2004
Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management (2005). Red blue booklet, the roles of Emergency services in Incident Management in the Netherlands, ISBN 90-369-0097-2 April 2005.
Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management (2007), Verkeersmanagement 2020. De verkeersmanagement ambitie van Rijkswaterstaat voor hoofdwegen. Rijkswaterstaat, februari 2007.
Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management (2008). Policy Framework ‘Better Utilization of existing infrastructure’. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Januari 2008.
Dutch Ministry of Transportation and Water Management (2011). Positioning Paper Incident Management. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2011.
European Conference of Ministers of Transport – ECMT (2007). Managing Urban Traffic Congestion, ISBN 978-92-821-0128-5 - ECMT, 2007
Eijk, R. van, Mulder, I., Hofte, H. ter and Steen., M. (2004). We-centric, context-aware, adaptive mobile service bundles. Defining concepts, functionalities and research questions. Telematica Instituut.
Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97–101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors 37(1) pp. 32-64.
31
Endsley, M. R. and Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37, pp. 381–394.
Endsley, M. R. (2000). Theoretical Underpinning of Situation Awareness: Critical Review. In: Endsley MR, Garland DJ, editors. Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 2000. pp. 3-32
Endsley, M. R. and Garland, D. G. (2000). Situation Awareness,Analysis and Measurement, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahway, New Jersey, 2000.
Endsley, M.R. and Jones, W.M. (2001). A model of inter- and intrateam situation awareness: Implications for design, training and measurement. In M. McNeese, E. Salas & M. Endsley (Eds.), New trends in cooperative activities: Understanding system dynamics in complex environments. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Endsley, M. R., Bolte, B., and Jones D. G. (2003). Designing for Situational Awareness: An Approach to User-CenteredDesign, Taylor and Francis, New York, 2003.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2009). NIMS FAQ: What is a common operating picture? Retrieved January 12, 2011 from: http://www.fema.gov/emergency/nims/CommunicationsInfoMngmnt.shtm
Feng, Y.H., Teng, T.H. and Tan, A.H. (2009).Modelling situation awareness for Context-aware Decision Support, Expert Systems with Applications 36, 455–463
Fracker, M., (1991). Measures of Situation Awareness: Review and Future Directions, (Rep. No.AL-TR-1991-0128). Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Armstrong Laboratories, Crew Systems Directorate
Franklin, D. and Flaschbart, J. All Gadget and No Representation Makes Jack a Dull Environment. AAAI 1998 Spring Symposium on Intelligent Environments, Technical Report SS-98-02 (1998) pp. 155-160
Graves, R. (2004). Key technologies for emergency response. Paper presented at the First International Workshop on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management ISCRAM2004, Brussels.
Grontmij (2004). Richtlijn voor incident evaluaties. De Bilt: Grontmij Advies & Techniek B.V.
Gross, T. and Specht, M., (2001). Awareness in Context-Aware Information Systems, GMD-FIT, St. Augustin, Mensch & Computer 2001: Fachübergreifende Konferenz. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 2001, pp. 173-181
Hale, J. (1997). A layered communication architecture for the support of crisis response, Journal of Management Information Systems, summer 1997, 14(1) pp. 235-255.
Hall, R. W. (2002): ‘Incident Dispatching, Clearance and Delay’, Transportation Research, 36A, 1–16.
Harrald, J. and Jefferson, T. (2007). Shared Situational Awareness in Emergency Management Mitigation and Response, Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1530-1605/07, 2007 IEEE.
Hartel, C.E.J., Smith, K. and Prince, C. (1991). Defining aircrew coordination: Searching mishaps for meaning. Paper presented at the 6th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.
Homeland Security (2008). National Incident Management System, december 2008. Hone, G., Martin, L., and Ayres, R., (2006) Awareness – does the acronym “SA” still have
any value? Proceedings of the 11th International Command and Control Research and
32
Technology Symposium: Coalition Command and Control in the Networked Era. held at Cambridge UK. Washington
Hull, R., Neaves, P. and Bedford-Roberts, J. (1997). Towards Situated Computing. 1st International Symposium on Wearable Computers 1997 pp. 146-153.
Immers, L.H. (2007), Guide to professional Incident Management, TNO-rapport 2007-D-R1242/B Wegwijzer naar professioneel Incident Management, November 2007
Jeannot, E., Kelly, C. and Thompson, D. (2003). The development of situation awareness measures in ATM systems. Brussels: Eurocontrol.
Klein, G. (2000). Cognitive Task Analysis of Teams. In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, V. L. Shalin (Eds). Cognitive Task Analysis, pp. 417-431. Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
Knoop, V. L. (2009), Road Incidents and Network Dynamics Effects on driving behaviour and traffic congestion. Dissertation 2 december 2009, Technische Universiteit Delft
Koster, P. and Rietveld, P. (2011), Optimising Incident Management on the Road, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, (45) 1 , pp. 63-81, January 2011
Kouwenhoven M., H. Siemonsma, and R. van Grol (2006): ‘Voertuigverliesuren door incidenten’, Report PM-2066-AVV (in Dutch).
Küpper, A. (2005). Location-based Services - Fundamentals and Operation, Wiley 2005 Lambert, D. A. (2001). Situations for Situation Awareness. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Information Fusion Montreal, Canada. Lambert, D. A. (2003). Grand Challenges of Information Fusion. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Information Fusion Cairns, Australia. Lambert, D. and Scholz, J., A (2005). Dialectic for Network Centric Warfare Proceedings of
the 10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (ICCRTS), MacLean, VA, June 13–16, 2005.
Lee, H. L. and Whang, S. (2000). Information sharing in a supply chain. International Journal of Technology Management, 20(3) pp. 373–387. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2000.002867.
Lee, J. T. and J. Fazio (2005): ‘Influential Factors in Freeway Crash Response and Clearance Times by Emergency Management Services in Peak Periods’, Traffic Injury Prevention, 6(4), 331–9.
Lee, Y, Bharosa, N, Yang, J, Janssen, M & Rao, H. (2011). Group value and intention to use - A study of multi-agency disaster management information systems for public safety. Decision Support Systems, 50 (1), pp. 404-414.
McKinsey and Company (1995) Filearm wegbeheer (Eng: Tailback free traffic management), Ministerie van Verkeer en Vervoer, The Hague, in Dutch
Merket, D.C., Bergondy, M. and Cuevas-Mesa, H. (1997). Making sense out of teamwork errors in complex environments. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Industrial/Organizational-Organizational Behavior Graduate Student Conference, Roanoke, VA.
Moran, T. and.Dourish, P. (2001). Special issue on context-aware computing. Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 2001.
Mulgund, S. and Landsman, S. (2007). User defined operational pictures for tailored situation awareness. Proceedings of the 12th international command and control research and technology symposium – Adapting C2 to the 21st century, Newport, RI, 19–21 June 2007.
NASA: Human-Centered Systems Lab (2006). NASA Ames Research Center, CA [Online]. Available: http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/ihi/hcsl/sadisplays.html.
33
Naval Aviation Schools Command, Pensacola, FL: CRM: Seven Skills (2006). Naval Aviation Schools Command, FL [Online]. Available: https://wwwnt.cnet.navy.mil/crm/crm/stand_mat/seven_skills/sev_skills.asp.
Nofi, A.A. (2000). Defining and measuring shared situational awareness. Center for Naval Analysis, Report CRM D0002895.A1/Final, pp. 76.
Nullmeyer, R.T., Stella, D., Montijo, G.A. and Harden, S.W. (2005). Human factors in Air Force flight mishaps: Implications for change. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (paper no. 2260). Arlington, VA: National Training Systems Association.
Oomes, A.H.J. (2004). Organization Awareness in crisis management; Dynamic organigrams for more effective disaster management. In B. Carle en B. van de Walle (Eds.), Proceedings of ISCRAM2004, pp. 63-68.
Owens, W. (1996). System of Systems: US Emerging Dominant Battlefield Awareness Promises to Dissipate ‘Fog of War’, Armed Forces Journal International (January 1996), p. 47.
Özbay, K. and Kachroo, P. (1999). Incident Management for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Artech House, Massachusetts.
Pascoe, J. (1998). Adding Generic Contextual Capabilities to Wearable Computers. 2nd International Symposium on Wearable Computers (1998) pp. 92-99
Pentagon (2006). Reports Situational Awareness (2006, May). Storming Media, LLC, Washington DC [Online].Available: http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/situational_awareness.htm.
Perry, W., Signori, D., & Boon, J. (2004). “Exploring Information Superiority: A Methodology for Measuring the Quality of Information and its Impact on Shared Awareness.” Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation. ISBN 0-8330-3489-8.
Redding, R.E. (1992). Analyses of operational errors and workload in air trafic control. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual meeting pp. 1321-1325, Sante Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Reisen, R. van (2006): ‘Incidentele files, de kenmerken, de kosten en het beleid’, SEO Discussion Paper No. 50 (in Dutch).
Rodden, T., Cheverst, K., Davies, K. and Dix, A.(1998). Exploiting Context in HCI Design for Mobile Systems, Workshop on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices.
Roy, J. (2007), A Knowledge-Centric View of Situation Analysis Support Systems, (TR 2005-419) DRDC Valcartier. Technical Report, January 2007.
Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, P.D. and Shrestha, L. (1995). Situation awareness in team performance, Human Factors, 37, pp 123-126.
Salmon P., Neville, M., Stanton, A., Ladva, D., Jenkins, D.P., Walker, G.H. and Rafferty, L. (2007). Measuring Situation Awareness during Command and Control Activity: A Comparison of Brunel University Measures Study Human Factors Integration Defence Technology Centre 2007, HFIDTC/2/1.2.5/3, Version 2/ 25 September 2007.
Sarter, N. B. and Woods, D. D. (1991). Situation Awareness - A Critical But Ill-Defined Phenomenon. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1 pp 45-57.
Schilit, B., Adams, N. and Want, R. (1994). Context-Aware Computing Applications. 1st International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications pp. 85-90.
Schmidt, A., Beigl, M. and Gellersen, H.W. (1999). There is more to Context than Location. Computer and Graphics 23(6) pp. 893-901.
34
Schrijver J., B. Immers, M. Snelder, and R. de Jong (2006): ‘Effecten van de landelijke invoering van incidentmanagementmaatregelen op de voertuigverliestijd in het netwerk’, TNO Mobility and Logistics (in Dutch).
Singh, P., Singh, P., Park, I., Lee, J., and Rao H.R., (2007), Information Sharing: A study of information attributes and their relative significance during catastrophic events
Smith, K. and Hancock, P.A., (1995). Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness, Human Factors 37, pp. 137-148.
Stanton, N. A., Chambers, P. R. G. and Piggott, J. (2001). Situational awareness and safety. Safety Science, 39, pp.189-204.
Strong, D.M., Lee, Y.W., and Wang, R.Y. “Data quality on context.” Communication of the ACM, 40(5). 1997. pp.103-110.
Turoff, M. Chumer, Walle, B. van de, and Yao, X. (2004). The Design of a Dynamic Emergency Response Management Information System (DERMIS), The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 5(4), pp. 1-35.
UK Ministry of Defence (2005). Networked Enabled Capability JSP 777 Edition 1, UK Ministry of Defence, http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/ScienceandTechnologyPublications/NEC/Jsp777NetworkEnabledCapability.htm (last accessed 12-01-2011).
US Department of Defense (2005), Dictionary of Military Terms, available from http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/; Internet; accessed 12 January 2011.
US Federal Highway Administration (2000). Traffic Incident Management Handbook, Office of Travel Management.
US Federal Highway Administration (2004), Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems prepared by Cambridge Systematics with Texas Transportation Institute, July 19, 2004
US National Cooperative Highway Research Program (2004). Sharing Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies for Traffic Incident Management, NCHRP Report 520, K. Brooke, K. Dopart, T. Smith and A. Flannery, Mitretek Systems, Inc. Washington, DC, Transportation Research Board, ISBN 0-309-08792-9.
U.S. Department of Transportation (2009). Information Sharing for Traffic Incident Management, Federal Highway Administration, Ingrid Birenbaum, Report No. FHWA-HOP-08-059.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., and Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3):425-478, 2003.
Waltz, E. (2003). Knowledge Management in the Intelligence Enterprise, Artech House, Norwood, MA, 2003.
Ward, A., Jones, A. and Hopper, A. (1997) A New Location Technique for the Active Office. IEEE Personal Communications 4(5) pp. 42-47.
Wark, S., Lambert, D., Nowina-Krowicki, M., Zschorn, A. and Pang, D. (2009). Situational Awareness: Beyond Dots On Maps To Virtually Anywhere (2009).
Wickens, C. D. (2008). Situation Awareness: Review of Mica Endsley’s 1995 Articles on Situation Awareness Theory and Measurement, HUMAN FACTORS, Vol. 50, No. 3, June 2008, pp. 397–403. DOI 10.1518/001872008X288420.
Wixom, B. H. and Todd, P. A. (2005). A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.
35
Wilmink, I. R. and L. H. Immers (1996): ‘Deriving Incident Management Measures Using Incident Probability Models and Simulation’, Transportation Research Record, 1554.
World Health Organization (2004). Preventing road traffic injury: A public health perspective for Europe, (Report from Francesca Racioppi, Lars Eriksson, Claes Tingvall and Andres Villaveces) ISBN 92 890 1093 2.
World Health Organization (2009). Global status report on road safety, time for action ISBN978 92 4 156384 0.
Washington State Department of Transportation (2011). Incident Response Evaluation, WSDOT Research Report, February 2011.
Zwaneveld P., Wilmink, I., Immers, B. Malipaard, E. and Heyse, D. (2000). An overview of Incident Management projects in the Netherlands. Peter Zwaneveld, Isabel Wilmink TNO Inro Ben Immers, TNO Inro and K.U. Leuven, Department of Civil Engineering Emst Malipaard, Grontmij, Dick Heyse Rijkswaterstaat, Projectbureau Incident Management.
2007-1 M. Francesca
Cracolici Miranda Cuffaro Peter Nijkamp
Geographical distribution of enemployment: An analysis of provincial differences in Italy, 21 p.
2007-2 Daniel Leliefeld Evgenia Motchenkova
To protec in order to serve, adverse effects of leniency programs in view of industry asymmetry, 29 p.
2007-3 M.C. Wassenaar E. Dijkgraaf R.H.J.M. Gradus
Contracting out: Dutch municipalities reject the solution for the VAT-distortion, 24 p.
2007-4 R.S. Halbersma M.C. Mikkers E. Motchenkova I. Seinen
Market structure and hospital-insurer bargaining in the Netherlands, 20 p.
2007-5 Bas P. Singer Bart A.G. Bossink Herman J.M. Vande Putte
Corporate Real estate and competitive strategy, 27 p.
2007-6 Dorien Kooij Annet de Lange Paul Jansen Josje Dikkers
Older workers’ motivation to continue to work: Five meanings of age. A conceptual review, 46 p.
2007-7 Stella Flytzani Peter Nijkamp
Locus of control and cross-cultural adjustment of expatriate managers, 16 p.
2007-8 Tibert Verhagen Willemijn van Dolen
Explaining online purchase intentions: A multi-channel store image perspective, 28 p.
2007-9 Patrizia Riganti Peter Nijkamp
Congestion in popular tourist areas: A multi-attribute experimental choice analysis of willingness-to-wait in Amsterdam, 21 p.
2007-10 Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Critical success factors in planning and management of urban green spaces in Europe, 14 p.
2007-11 Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Migrant entrepreneurship in a diverse Europe: In search of sustainable development, 18 p.
2007-12 Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp Mediha Sahin
New orientations in ethnic entrepreneurship: Motivation, goals and strategies in new generation ethnic entrepreneurs, 22 p.
2007-13 Miranda Cuffaro Maria Francesca Cracolici Peter Nijkamp
Measuring the performance of Italian regions on social and economic dimensions, 20 p.
2007-14 Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Characteristics of migrant entrepreneurship in Europe, 14 p.
2007-15 Maria Teresa Borzacchiello Peter Nijkamp Eric Koomen
Accessibility and urban development: A grid-based comparative statistical analysis of Dutch cities, 22 p.
2007-16 Tibert Verhagen Selmar Meents
A framework for developing semantic differentials in IS research: Assessing the meaning of electronic marketplace quality (EMQ), 64 p.
2007-17 Aliye Ahu Gülümser Tüzin Baycan Levent Peter Nijkamp
Changing trends in rural self-employment in Europe, 34 p.
2007-18 Laura de Dominicis Raymond J.G.M. Florax Henri L.F. de Groot
De ruimtelijke verdeling van economische activiteit: Agglomeratie- en locatiepatronen in Nederland, 35 p.
2007-19 E. Dijkgraaf R.H.J.M. Gradus
How to get increasing competition in the Dutch refuse collection market? 15 p.
2008-1 Maria T. Borzacchiello Irene Casas Biagio Ciuffo Peter Nijkamp
Geo-ICT in Transportation Science, 25 p.
2008-2 Maura Soekijad Congestion at the floating road? Negotiation in networked innovation, 38 p. Jeroen Walschots Marleen Huysman 2008-3
Marlous Agterberg Bart van den Hooff
Keeping the wheels turning: Multi-level dynamics in organizing networks of practice, 47 p.
Marleen Huysman Maura Soekijad 2008-4 Marlous Agterberg
Marleen Huysman Bart van den Hooff
Leadership in online knowledge networks: Challenges and coping strategies in a network of practice, 36 p.
2008-5 Bernd Heidergott Differentiability of product measures, 35 p.
Haralambie Leahu
2008-6 Tibert Verhagen Frans Feldberg
Explaining user adoption of virtual worlds: towards a multipurpose motivational model, 37 p.
Bart van den Hooff Selmar Meents 2008-7 Masagus M. Ridhwan
Peter Nijkamp Piet Rietveld Henri L.F. de Groot
Regional development and monetary policy. A review of the role of monetary unions, capital mobility and locational effects, 27 p.
2008-8 Selmar Meents
Tibert Verhagen Investigating the impact of C2C electronic marketplace quality on trust, 69 p.
2008-9 Junbo Yu
Peter Nijkamp
China’s prospects as an innovative country: An industrial economics perspective, 27 p
2008-10 Junbo Yu Peter Nijkamp
Ownership, r&d and productivity change: Assessing the catch-up in China’s high-tech industries, 31 p
2008-11 Elbert Dijkgraaf
Raymond Gradus
Environmental activism and dynamics of unit-based pricing systems, 18 p.
2008-12 Mark J. Koetse Jan Rouwendal
Transport and welfare consequences of infrastructure investment: A case study for the Betuweroute, 24 p
2008-13 Marc D. Bahlmann Marleen H. Huysman Tom Elfring Peter Groenewegen
Clusters as vehicles for entrepreneurial innovation and new idea generation – a critical assessment
2008-14 Soushi Suzuki
Peter Nijkamp A generalized goals-achievement model in data envelopment analysis: An application to efficiency improvement in local government finance in Japan, 24 p.
2008-15 Tüzin Baycan-Levent External orientation of second generation migrant entrepreneurs. A sectoral
Peter Nijkamp Mediha Sahin
study on Amsterdam, 33 p.
2008-16 Enno Masurel Local shopkeepers’ associations and ethnic minority entrepreneurs, 21 p. 2008-17 Frank Frößler
Boriana Rukanova Stefan Klein Allen Higgins Yao-Hua Tan
Inter-organisational network formation and sense-making: Initiation and management of a living lab, 25 p.
2008-18 Peter Nijkamp
Frank Zwetsloot Sander van der Wal
A meta-multicriteria analysis of innovation and growth potentials of European regions, 20 p.
2008-19 Junbo Yu Roger R. Stough Peter Nijkamp
Governing technological entrepreneurship in China and the West, 21 p.
2008-20 Maria T. Borzacchiello
Peter Nijkamp Henk J. Scholten
A logistic regression model for explaining urban development on the basis of accessibility: a case study of Naples, 13 p.
2008-21 Marius Ooms Trends in applied econometrics software development 1985-2008, an analysis of
Journal of Applied Econometrics research articles, software reviews, data and code, 30 p.
2008-22 Aliye Ahu Gülümser
Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Changing trends in rural self-employment in Europe and Turkey, 20 p.
2008-23 Patricia van Hemert
Peter Nijkamp Thematic research prioritization in the EU and the Netherlands: an assessment on the basis of content analysis, 30 p.
2008-24 Jasper Dekkers
Eric Koomen Valuation of open space. Hedonic house price analysis in the Dutch Randstad region, 19 p.
2009-1 Boriana Rukanova Rolf T. Wignand Yao-Hua Tan
From national to supranational government inter-organizational systems: An extended typology, 33 p.
2009-2
Marc D. Bahlmann Marleen H. Huysman Tom Elfring Peter Groenewegen
Global Pipelines or global buzz? A micro-level approach towards the knowledge-based view of clusters, 33 p.
2009-3
Julie E. Ferguson Marleen H. Huysman
Between ambition and approach: Towards sustainable knowledge management in development organizations, 33 p.
2009-4 Mark G. Leijsen Why empirical cost functions get scale economies wrong, 11 p. 2009-5 Peter Nijkamp
Galit Cohen-Blankshtain
The importance of ICT for cities: e-governance and cyber perceptions, 14 p.
2009-6 Eric de Noronha Vaz
Mário Caetano Peter Nijkamp
Trapped between antiquity and urbanism. A multi-criteria assessment model of the greater Cairo metropolitan area, 22 p.
2009-7 Eric de Noronha Vaz
Teresa de Noronha Vaz Peter Nijkamp
Spatial analysis for policy evaluation of the rural world: Portuguese agriculture in the last decade, 16 p.
2009-8 Teresa de Noronha
Vaz Peter Nijkamp
Multitasking in the rural world: Technological change and sustainability, 20 p.
2009-9 Maria Teresa
Borzacchiello Vincenzo Torrieri Peter Nijkamp
An operational information systems architecture for assessing sustainable transportation planning: Principles and design, 17 p.
2009-10 Vincenzo Del Giudice
Pierfrancesco De Paola Francesca Torrieri Francesca Pagliari Peter Nijkamp
A decision support system for real estate investment choice, 16 p.
2009-11 Miruna Mazurencu
Marinescu Peter Nijkamp
IT companies in rough seas: Predictive factors for bankruptcy risk in Romania, 13 p.
2009-12 Boriana Rukanova
Helle Zinner Hendriksen Eveline van Stijn Yao-Hua Tan
Bringing is innovation in a highly-regulated environment: A collective action perspective, 33 p.
2009-13 Patricia van Hemert
Peter Nijkamp Jolanda Verbraak
Evaluating social science and humanities knowledge production: an exploratory analysis of dynamics in science systems, 20 p.
2009-14 Roberto Patuelli Aura Reggiani Peter Nijkamp Norbert Schanne
Neural networks for cross-sectional employment forecasts: A comparison of model specifications for Germany, 15 p.
2009-15 André de Waal
Karima Kourtit Peter Nijkamp
The relationship between the level of completeness of a strategic performance management system and perceived advantages and disadvantages, 19 p.
2009-16 Vincenzo Punzo
Vincenzo Torrieri Maria Teresa Borzacchiello Biagio Ciuffo Peter Nijkamp
Modelling intermodal re-balance and integration: planning a sub-lagoon tube for Venezia, 24 p.
2009-17 Peter Nijkamp
Roger Stough Mediha Sahin
Impact of social and human capital on business performance of migrant entrepreneurs – a comparative Dutch-US study, 31 p.
2009-18 Dres Creal A survey of sequential Monte Carlo methods for economics and finance, 54 p. 2009-19 Karima Kourtit
André de Waal Strategic performance management in practice: Advantages, disadvantages and reasons for use, 15 p.
2009-20 Karima Kourtit
André de Waal Peter Nijkamp
Strategic performance management and creative industry, 17 p.
2009-21 Eric de Noronha Vaz
Peter Nijkamp Historico-cultural sustainability and urban dynamics – a geo-information science approach to the Algarve area, 25 p.
2009-22 Roberta Capello
Peter Nijkamp Regional growth and development theories revisited, 19 p.
2009-23 M. Francesca Cracolici
Miranda Cuffaro Peter Nijkamp
Tourism sustainability and economic efficiency – a statistical analysis of Italian provinces, 14 p.
2009-24 Caroline A. Rodenburg
Peter Nijkamp Henri L.F. de Groot Erik T. Verhoef
Valuation of multifunctional land use by commercial investors: A case study on the Amsterdam Zuidas mega-project, 21 p.
2009-25 Katrin Oltmer
Peter Nijkamp Raymond Florax Floor Brouwer
Sustainability and agri-environmental policy in the European Union: A meta-analytic investigation, 26 p.
2009-26 Francesca Torrieri
Peter Nijkamp Scenario analysis in spatial impact assessment: A methodological approach, 20 p.
2009-27 Aliye Ahu Gülümser
Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder: A logistic regression analysis of sustainability and locality as competitive vehicles for human settlements, 14 p.
2009-28 Marco Percoco Peter Nijkamp
Individual time preferences and social discounting in environmental projects, 24 p.
2009-29 Peter Nijkamp
Maria Abreu Regional development theory, 12 p.
2009-30 Tüzin Baycan-Levent
Peter Nijkamp 7 FAQs in urban planning, 22 p.
2009-31 Aliye Ahu Gülümser
Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Turkey’s rurality: A comparative analysis at the EU level, 22 p.
2009-32 Frank Bruinsma
Karima Kourtit Peter Nijkamp
An agent-based decision support model for the development of e-services in the tourist sector, 21 p.
2009-33 Mediha Sahin
Peter Nijkamp Marius Rietdijk
Cultural diversity and urban innovativeness: Personal and business characteristics of urban migrant entrepreneurs, 27 p.
2009-34 Peter Nijkamp
Mediha Sahin Performance indicators of urban migrant entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, 28 p.
2009-35 Manfred M. Fischer
Peter Nijkamp Entrepreneurship and regional development, 23 p.
2009-36 Faroek Lazrak
Peter Nijkamp Piet Rietveld Jan Rouwendal
Cultural heritage and creative cities: An economic evaluation perspective, 20 p.
2009-37 Enno Masurel
Peter Nijkamp Bridging the gap between institutions of higher education and small and medium-size enterprises, 32 p.
2009-38 Francesca Medda
Peter Nijkamp Piet Rietveld
Dynamic effects of external and private transport costs on urban shape: A morphogenetic perspective, 17 p.
2009-39 Roberta Capello
Peter Nijkamp Urban economics at a cross-yard: Recent theoretical and methodological directions and future challenges, 16 p.
2009-40 Enno Masurel
Peter Nijkamp The low participation of urban migrant entrepreneurs: Reasons and perceptions of weak institutional embeddedness, 23 p.
2009-41 Patricia van Hemert
Peter Nijkamp Knowledge investments, business R&D and innovativeness of countries. A qualitative meta-analytic comparison, 25 p.
2009-42 Teresa de Noronha
Vaz Peter Nijkamp
Knowledge and innovation: The strings between global and local dimensions of sustainable growth, 16 p.
2009-43 Chiara M. Travisi
Peter Nijkamp Managing environmental risk in agriculture: A systematic perspective on the potential of quantitative policy-oriented risk valuation, 19 p.
2009-44 Sander de Leeuw Logistics aspects of emergency preparedness in flood disaster prevention, 24 p.
Iris F.A. Vis Sebastiaan B. Jonkman
2009-45 Eveline S. van
Leeuwen Peter Nijkamp
Social accounting matrices. The development and application of SAMs at the local level, 26 p.
2009-46 Tibert Verhagen
Willemijn van Dolen The influence of online store characteristics on consumer impulsive decision-making: A model and empirical application, 33 p.
2009-47 Eveline van Leeuwen
Peter Nijkamp A micro-simulation model for e-services in cultural heritage tourism, 23 p.
2009-48 Andrea Caragliu
Chiara Del Bo Peter Nijkamp
Smart cities in Europe, 15 p.
2009-49 Faroek Lazrak
Peter Nijkamp Piet Rietveld Jan Rouwendal
Cultural heritage: Hedonic prices for non-market values, 11 p.
2009-50 Eric de Noronha Vaz
João Pedro Bernardes Peter Nijkamp
Past landscapes for the reconstruction of Roman land use: Eco-history tourism in the Algarve, 23 p.
2009-51 Eveline van Leeuwen
Peter Nijkamp Teresa de Noronha Vaz
The Multi-functional use of urban green space, 12 p.
2009-52 Peter Bakker
Carl Koopmans Peter Nijkamp
Appraisal of integrated transport policies, 20 p.
2009-53 Luca De Angelis
Leonard J. Paas The dynamics analysis and prediction of stock markets through the latent Markov model, 29 p.
2009-54 Jan Anne Annema
Carl Koopmans Een lastige praktijk: Ervaringen met waarderen van omgevingskwaliteit in de kosten-batenanalyse, 17 p.
2009-55 Bas Straathof
Gert-Jan Linders Europe’s internal market at fifty: Over the hill? 39 p.
2009-56 Joaquim A.S.
Gromicho Jelke J. van Hoorn Francisco Saldanha-da-Gama Gerrit T. Timmer
Exponentially better than brute force: solving the job-shop scheduling problem optimally by dynamic programming, 14 p.
2009-57 Carmen Lee
Roman Kraeussl Leo Paas
The effect of anticipated and experienced regret and pride on investors’ future selling decisions, 31 p.
2009-58 René Sitters Efficient algorithms for average completion time scheduling, 17 p.
2009-59 Masood Gheasi Peter Nijkamp Piet Rietveld
Migration and tourist flows, 20 p.
2010-1 Roberto Patuelli Norbert Schanne Daniel A. Griffith Peter Nijkamp
Persistent disparities in regional unemployment: Application of a spatial filtering approach to local labour markets in Germany, 28 p.
2010-2 Thomas de Graaff
Ghebre Debrezion Piet Rietveld
Schaalsprong Almere. Het effect van bereikbaarheidsverbeteringen op de huizenprijzen in Almere, 22 p.
2010-3 John Steenbruggen
Maria Teresa Borzacchiello Peter Nijkamp Henk Scholten
Real-time data from mobile phone networks for urban incidence and traffic management – a review of application and opportunities, 23 p.
2010-4 Marc D. Bahlmann
Tom Elfring Peter Groenewegen Marleen H. Huysman
Does distance matter? An ego-network approach towards the knowledge-based theory of clusters, 31 p.
2010-5 Jelke J. van Hoorn A note on the worst case complexity for the capacitated vehicle routing problem,
3 p. 2010-6 Mark G. Lijesen Empirical applications of spatial competition; an interpretative literature review,
16 p. 2010-7 Carmen Lee
Roman Kraeussl Leo Paas
Personality and investment: Personality differences affect investors’ adaptation to losses, 28 p.
2010-8 Nahom Ghebrihiwet
Evgenia Motchenkova Leniency programs in the presence of judicial errors, 21 p.
2010-9 Meindert J. Flikkema
Ard-Pieter de Man Matthijs Wolters
New trademark registration as an indicator of innovation: results of an explorative study of Benelux trademark data, 53 p.
2010-10 Jani Merikivi
Tibert Verhagen Frans Feldberg
Having belief(s) in social virtual worlds: A decomposed approach, 37 p.
2010-11 Umut Kilinç Price-cost markups and productivity dynamics of entrant plants, 34 p. 2010-12 Umut Kilinç Measuring competition in a frictional economy, 39 p.
2011-1 Yoshifumi Takahashi Peter Nijkamp
Multifunctional agricultural land use in sustainable world, 25 p.
2011-2 Paulo A.L.D. Nunes
Peter Nijkamp Biodiversity: Economic perspectives, 37 p.
2011-3 Eric de Noronha Vaz
Doan Nainggolan Peter Nijkamp Marco Painho
A complex spatial systems analysis of tourism and urban sprawl in the Algarve, 23 p.
2011-4 Karima Kourtit
Peter Nijkamp Strangers on the move. Ethnic entrepreneurs as urban change actors, 34 p.
2011-5 Manie Geyer
Helen C. Coetzee Danie Du Plessis Ronnie Donaldson Peter Nijkamp
Recent business transformation in intermediate-sized cities in South Africa, 30 p.
2011-6 Aki Kangasharju
Christophe Tavéra Peter Nijkamp
Regional growth and unemployment. The validity of Okun’s law for the Finnish regions, 17 p.
2011-7 Amitrajeet A. Batabyal
Peter Nijkamp A Schumpeterian model of entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional economic growth, 30 p.
2011-8 Aliye Ahu Akgün
Tüzin Baycan Levent Peter Nijkamp
The engine of sustainable rural development: Embeddedness of entrepreneurs in rural Turkey, 17 p.
2011-9 Aliye Ahu Akgün
Eveline van Leeuwen Peter Nijkamp
A systemic perspective on multi-stakeholder sustainable development strategies, 26 p.
2011-10 Tibert Verhagen
Jaap van Nes Frans Feldberg Willemijn van Dolen
Virtual customer service agents: Using social presence and personalization to shape online service encounters, 48 p.
2011-11 Henk J. Scholten
Maarten van der Vlist De inrichting van crisisbeheersing, de relatie tussen besluitvorming en informatievoorziening. Casus: Warroom project Netcentrisch werken bij Rijkswaterstaat, 23 p.
2011-12 Tüzin Baycan
Peter Nijkamp A socio-economic impact analysis of cultural diversity, 22 p.
2011-13 Aliye Ahu Akgün
Tüzin Baycan Peter Nijkamp
Repositioning rural areas as promising future hot spots, 22 p.
2011-14 Selmar Meents
Tibert Verhagen Paul Vlaar
How sellers can stimulate purchasing in electronic marketplaces: Using information as a risk reduction signal, 29 p.
2011-15 Aliye Ahu Gülümser Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Measuring regional creative capacity: A literature review for rural-specific approaches, 22 p.
2011-16 Frank Bruinsma
Karima Kourtit Peter Nijkamp
Tourism, culture and e-services: Evaluation of e-services packages, 30 p.
2011-17 Peter Nijkamp
Frank Bruinsma Karima Kourtit Eveline van Leeuwen
Supply of and demand for e-services in the cultural sector: Combining top-down and bottom-up perspectives, 16 p.
2011-18 Eveline van Leeuwen
Peter Nijkamp Piet Rietveld
Climate change: From global concern to regional challenge, 17 p.
2011-19 Eveline van Leeuwen
Peter Nijkamp Operational advances in tourism research, 25 p.
2011-20 Aliye Ahu Akgün
Tüzin Baycan Peter Nijkamp
Creative capacity for sustainable development: A comparative analysis of European and Turkish rural regions, 18 p.
2011-21 Aliye Ahu Gülümser
Tüzin Baycan-Levent Peter Nijkamp
Business dynamics as the source of counterurbanisation: An empirical analysis of Turkey, 18 p.
2011-22 Jessie Bakens
Peter Nijkamp Lessons from migration impact analysis, 19 p.
2011-23 Peter Nijkamp
Galit Cohen-blankshtain
Opportunities and pitfalls of local e-democracy, 17 p.
2011-24 Maura Soekijad
Irene Skovgaard Smith The ‘lean people’ in hospital change: Identity work as social differentiation, 30 p.
2011-25 Evgenia Motchenkova
Olgerd Rus Research joint ventures and price collusion: Joint analysis of the impact of R&D subsidies and antitrust fines, 30 p.
2011-26 Karima Kourtit
Peter Nijkamp Strategic choice analysis by expert panels for migration impact assessment, 41 p.
2011-27 Faroek Lazrak
Peter Nijkamp Piet Rietveld Jan Rouwendal
The market value of listed heritage: An urban economic application of spatial hedonic pricing, 24 p.
2011-28 Peter Nijkamp Socio-economic impacts of heterogeneity among foreign migrants: Research
and policy challenges, 17 p. 2011-29 Masood Gheasi
Peter Nijkamp Migration, tourism and international trade: Evidence from the UK, 8 p.
2011-30 Karima Kourtit Evaluation of cyber-tools in cultural tourism, 24 p.
Peter Nijkamp Eveline van Leeuwen Frank Bruinsma
2011-31 Cathy Macharis
Peter Nijkamp Possible bias in multi-actor multi-criteria transportation evaluation: Issues and solutions, 16 p.
2011-32 John Steenbruggen
Maria Teresa Borzacchiello Peter Nijkamp Henk Scholten
The use of GSM data for transport safety management: An exploratory review, 29 p.
2011-33 John Steenbruggen
Peter Nijkamp Jan M. Smits Michel Grothe
Traffic incident management: A common operational picture to support situational awareness of sustainable mobility, 36 p.